Understanding Species vs Kind

I've covered the issue or defining a "kind" as creationists like to say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nFVwT-Uh7Q

I've covered how speciation is supposed to work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1mujfLFOJQ

But I haven't defined exactly what a species is...Shanedk did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb5OEw_q-II

This video will attempt to explain to creationists and everyone else the difference between a species and the common expression of a "kind" and how the two CAN NOT be the same or even remotely the same.

****Note-There are two errors and one confusing comment made in the video...

I said in the video "Common descendant" but I meant "common ancestor" on a couple of occasions.

The birds listed are all in the same class, but different orders.

And the scientific classification IN BIOLOGY starts with DOMAIN.
ANIMALS aren't recognized until KINGDOM...so the scientific classification OF ANIMALS starts with kingdom as I said.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• king
• heathen
• atheist
• atheism
• evolution
• creation
• kind
• species

[JimmyCarol100]

@ anyone with an answer, I know I read or heard it somewhere about German eugenist tryn to cross breed human females with sperm of other animals (not sure which) My question is since we are animals too, what other animals can the human impregnate or be impregnated by and have a viable offspring? Anyone? Surely there has to be one, since we evolved from another kind/species.

[sofiarune]

@puncheex I was actually looking up papers to send you but they all have an embargo on the online versions because they're recent. That's cool that you'e interested though. Most people find systematics really boring. During my digging it looks like Aves is kind of out too but I'm not as confident with that one. I'm majoring in systematics but I'm an entomology person so the vertebrate stuff isn't my specialty. I'll try and send you a message with better info later today though.

[puncheex]

@sofiarune: Oh, I certainly agree "reptile" is inaccurate, and I'm no expert in systematics, though I'm working as hard as I can to educate myself in this. I'm aware of the Linneus vs Phylocode vs Hennig Society vs ICZN et al. brawl. So, tell me, where can I find the best information on phylogenies now? Tolweb hasn't made any progress in three years, and your telling me that even wiki isn't being edited by anyone who knows anything. Send me a message if you care to.

[sofiarune]

@puncheex It's also worth noting the phylogenies and taxonomy are constantly changing as more and more information is becoming available. Domains and Kingdoms are currently under really serious review ( along with everything else). There is a ton of debate surrounding the Linnean system in general. Alternatives have been proposed. I could go on about this forever but the character limit is just too small. Suffice to say, in this field, a paper from 1996 is ancient history.

[sofiarune]

@puncheex You can check it out on the wiki itself. Reptilia referred to everything but Aves which creates the paraphyletic group. The tree on wiki is misleading because the actual term for the clade and the proper group is Class Sauropsida (which includes Aves). I'm not sure why they had the nested taxonomy right but the phylogeny wrong. I think people just don't like to give up the concept of reptiles even though it's inaccurate.

[puncheex]

@sofiarune: Hmmmm. I went back and looked up as many phylogenetic trees as I could find. I know reptilia was in tolweb, but they seem to be down. In wiki under Reptiles, there is a tree with reptilia sister to synapsida, desc from amniota. "This cladogram ... follows a simplified version of the relationships found by Laurin and Gauthier (1996), presented as part of the Tree of Life Web Project." Which systematicists are you citing? Can you direct me to a paper or discussion, perhaps?

[sofiarune]

A species, within the academic world and particularly within the field of systematics, is NOT clearly defined. The biological species concept is great for introductory biology courses but when you move beyond the superficial, the concept itself breaks down. The definition of species (or any taxanomical rank) is a relatively arbitrary construct that is convenient for discussion but not necessarily solid. I don't have enough character space to address this adequately. Maybe I'll make a video.

[sofiarune]

@puncheex For the record "reptilia" is a paraphyletic group and is no longer considered a proper clade by systematists. Therefore it cannot be a sister clade. Precedence is not given to the first describer when their taxanomic diagnosis is found to be incorrect. Names for whatever taxa you're looking at are changed all the time (eg - Class Repitilia has been thrown out). I know your comment is 2 months old but I thought I'd give you heads up for future discussion,

[KingHeathen]

@puncheex Further? Is there some first part I'm supposed to find in that absurd amount of comments you left? Seriously, I appreciate you wanting to get into the discussion, but YouTube's comment section sucks too much to do what you did and expect anyone to be able to follow what you are saying. If you have that much to say either reduce it to 1-2 text boxes, post it as a video response or send it as a PM.

[puncheex]

@CousinoMacul: Sure, and it gets even worse with viruses. But where the definition is vague, biologists can still push through, deriving by fiat that which isn't resolved by nature. Species and "tree of life" are intimately connected with sex. Before sex, what we had was the "network of life" - the promiscuity of genetics.